So far, the EOS M5 is the nearest thing Canon has made to a high-end mirrorless camera.

Rumors of a Canon mirrorless full-frame camera are heating up. Just days after our own Canon interview from CP+ 2018 seemed to hint, quite strongly, that a "high-end mirrorless" from Canon is in the works, Canon Rumors is reporting that they have "confirmed from a couple of good sources" that a full-frame mirrorless Canon is indeed being tested by select pros.

The Canon Rumors report, published earlier today, claims that "a full frame mirrorless camera is well into its development cycle," and is in fact being used by "select Canon pro photographers" in the field. This matches up with what Canon told us during our interview at CP+ 2018. Specifically, the Canon executives we spoke to said:

In accordance with the full lineup strategy, we will be tackling [the mid-range and high-end mirrorless market] going forward.

And when we asked if it was "realistic" to expect a Canon full-frame mirrorless camera within a year, their tongue-in-cheek response was:

Canon Rumors is "very confident we’re going to see something announced before the end of Q1 in 2019," while other outlets have predicted something for Photokina in September. Either way, as rumors and reports heat up, it seems more and more likely the industry will be getting a major shake-up in early 2019 or late 2018.

The major unanswered question is: what about lenses? Will Canon release a new lens mount with this rumored full-frame mirrorless camera—thereby taking advantage of the shorter flange distance offered by mirrorless—will the new camera be compatible with EF lenses out of the box, or will it be some sort of hybrid arrangement?

When we spoke to Canon, the company said it "can’t simply ignore the [130 million EF lenses] in the market," but that "we’re considering the technical advancements that are possible" with a new mount. In the end, they didn't give us anything definitive, encouraging us instead to "let your imagination suggest some possibilities."

Comments

I want a mirrorless Canon virtually identical to the 5D body but mirrorless with a much more usable settings readout in an electronic viewfinder. I use the 5 DS R version of this and the images are astonishing but the multiple settings in the many layered pages make me crazy.. I end up shooting in the modes most like 1960 era work with centre point and manual or shutter priority. It works for me. As well I like the large size of the body with its battery adapter always attached. I would be happy if it were lighter as I ought not to have to do a muscle building programme to work with this camera! As well or would really be swell if Canon got some decent modern software to work with this pro level. I end up immediately converting it to DNG but suspect that it is not a perfect conversion. I love the ergonomics of the 5 series other than the weight. Clearly any pro body will have to be an EOS compatible mount..end of story. I guess some are concerned about video..no opinion here.

What I want from a Canon high-end mirrorless is the grip of current Canon DSLRs. Shrink everything else using the EF-M mount to make them much thinner, with a smaller viewfinder hump (That could be close in shape to that of old EOS-1 cameras for nostalgia) Also, give them tilt screen.And now that optical viewfinder is no problem, there can be 5D AND 7D replacement, same everything with just different sensors. Keep the LP-E6 battery and bundle in a sturdy adapter.With this (Same grip, controls and battery, but very shrinked size) many pros and advanced amateurs currently using Canon DSLRs would simply upgrade to the new cameras.

I'm a Nikon FF user, but this is still an exciting development. Maybe it will nudge Nikon to be more proactive about this as well? In any case, following mirrorless developments of all brands has been interesting and adding the 'big boys' to the game will only make it more so!

bigger mount systems will be more robust and stronger, and can handle wider range of serious optics, such as those for cine lenses, even though most cine lenses are aimed only at smaller APSC/Super35 sized sensors, future cine lenses could be made for FF sensors, much like FF lenses for stills

smaller versions will make do with less strong "lite" versions, but will be more compact, and give up maximum flexibility (perhaps aimed at OEM Brand lenses only)

future FF zoom lenses for cine will be better centered than for stills

@kelpdiver - The benefit of EVF? Well, it unleashes the power of the image sensor to do things it can't currently in OVF cameras it sits behind a reflex mirror. For example, the only way you can match Sony's 693 AF points and 93% AF point coverage is by using the image sensor to do the AF, which is exactly what mirrorless EVF cameras do. Other benefits of EVF and mirrorless cameras: real-time exposure preview, histogram in the viewfinder (very valuable for ETTR), focus peaking and focus magnification, face/eye AF, etc. Plus, I love switching my EVF to black-and-white viewing mode because I find it helps immensely with improving my compositions. B/W viewing mode in EVF allows me to see the world more abstractly, allowing me to see lines, shapes, patterns, etc more clearly without the distractions of color. It's really one feature that has truly helped me to be a better photographer. You can't switch an OVF into black-and-white mode, haha. But you can with an EVF.

@kelpdiver - Whether you like EVF or not, you can't say that it has no benefit other than "being able to use EOS lenses with an adapter." EVF has a lot of benefits. You may not like any of the benefits, but that's a different issue. It reminds me of film photographers who hated digital photography. They disliked or dismissed any of the benefits of digital photography because they simply disliked digital photography. So it didn't matter what benefits digital photography might offer, they disliked it no matter what.

you can achieve many of the features you describe (BW, histogram, magnification, exposure) with the LCD and not give up the OVF benefits (as I wrote elsewhere here, vastly better battery life, infinite resolution, can adjust for different vision)

For a marketing standpoint, 693 AF points sounds amazing, but benefit is greatest for staged shots of still objects. Action shooters don't have time to manipulate the point in advance beyond center or a few directions off center. (and has anyone ever written about how good the Sony controls are?) The LCD touchscreens do allow this to be done fast, but then if you're using the EVF, easy for inadvertent touches from the face.

@kelpdiver - "you can achieve many of the features you describe (BW, histogram, magnification, exposure) with the LCD and not give up the OVF benefits "

But people want to be able to do all of that through the viewfinder. Looking at a back LCD generally sucks for any serious shooting. Most shooters want viewfinders. They don't want to be squinting at a rear LCD in daylight.

DSLRs are not going away anytime soon. But you just have to accept that they are no longer the only game in town. Things are changing. Mirrorless and EVF is on the rise. For example, if we look at all digital camera sales at Amazon, the top-selling ILC is the Canon Rebel T6, followed by the Nikon D3300, and the third best selling ILC is the Sony A7III. Yes, the A7III is outselling every other DSLR on Amazon except for bargain-basement models like the T6 and D3300.

@kelpdiver - "For a marketing standpoint, 693 AF points sounds amazing, but benefit is greatest for staged shots of still objects. Action shooters don't have time to manipulate the point in advance beyond center or a few directions off center."

That's where face AF tracking comes in. Face tracking AF does an amazing job of tracking a person's face throughout the frame. No need to "manually manipulate" the focus point. Here's wide area face/eye AF tracking in action:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyaOjhx_mK0No need to manually manipulate AF points. You can just concentrate on composition and shooting, not moving around an AF point!

As for wide area focus coverage for action, here's an example of focus tracking of fast-moving birds. The Sony A9's focus system is able to track the birds even as they fly out along the edges of the frame. Again, no manual manipulation of the focus points needed:

What in the world are you smoking? There's plenty of benefit of EVF and getting rid of that ancient mirror. Huge AF point coverage, real-time exposure preview, in-viewfinder histogram, face/eye AF, focus peaking, focus magnification, etc. As for "battery endurance", it's increasingly a non-issue. Battery life on the latest Sony's is very good. Besides, is it REALLY such an issue to change a battery? You're blowing the issue waaaaay out of proportion. Yes, in certain use cases, changing the battery may be a very big deal. If that's the case, just stick to DSLR! But for most people, changing a battery once in a while is not really that big a deal. I travel with mirrorless (either a Sony A6000 or a Fuji X-E1-- I use both systems), and changing batteries hasn't been an issue for me. It's a very small inconvenience compared to the benefits I'm getting from EVF and mirrorless in general. My DSLRs stay at home collecting dust.

@kelpdiver - But what's of greater issue is this: Why not have an alternative to DSLRs and OVFs? Why wouldn't you want additional options in cameras that are now made available thanks to advancements in technology? Why stick exclusively to an old technology (the reflex mirror) that is 80 years old? Why stick exclusively to the relatively primitive optical viewfinder? It just doesn't make much sense to not want to move forward with new options like EVF. It's like not wanting to move past the record player in the music listening world! Yeah, if you want to stick to record players, go ahead and do so. But let us also have other options that take advantage of newer technology!

@kelpdiver - "And T3, why in heck are you doing ETTR with a Sony sensor?"

Some people prefer that exposure method. It allows the sensor to collect the maximum amount of light and thus get the optimum performance out of the digital image sensor. And keep in mind, not all mirrorless cameras use Sony sensors. There are many brands of mirrorless cameras, and they don't all use Sony sensors. So that's a rather bizarre statement you are making.

Besides, whether you use ETTR or not, I still find it handy to be able to have a live histogram in the viewfinder. It greatly cuts down on post-shot chimping to be able to see a histogram and the exposure previewed in the viewfinder in real time while you are shooting. I've also found that since switching to mirrorless I spend a lot less time doing post-shot editing and exposure adjustments. I get more shots exposed exactly the way I want them to be exposed-- at the time of shooting. Big time saver for me!

you keep putting out a strawman that I or others are opposed to alternatives. Never said so. My responses are to the false claim that EVF is clearly superior and OVF is obsolete.

Look at my screen name - it's rather difficult to charge a battery if I'm 100ft under, with the camera in a housing repelling 4 atmospheres of pressure. It's equally difficult 18000ft up in Africa. So I'd rather have a camera that can go days rather than hours without opening it up.

OVF has an exposure meter. Seems to a large extent you're relying on crutches that are unnecessary, particularly for good (sunny) conditions. I'd still prefer to have the better resolution so I can see what I'm shooting.

@kelpdiver - "it's rather difficult to charge a battery if I'm 100ft under, with the camera in a housing repelling 4 atmospheres of pressure. It's equally difficult 18000ft up in Africa. "

As I have stated, there are certain use cases where changing batteries is an issue. But for most people, it's not an issue. Most people aren't 100ft under water or 18,000ft up in Africa! You're grasping at straws. These are very extreme outlier situations.

"Seems to a large extent you're relying on crutches that are unnecessary,"

Haha, the "unnecessary crutch" argument has been used every time a new feature or capability comes to photography: auto exposure, auto focus, image stabilization, more AF points, rear LCDs, etc, you name it, the "unnecessary crutch" label has been applied to all of these things by closed-minded curmudgeons. And now you're applying it to EVF features! It's deja vu! But it doesn't stop these features from becoming accepted and integrated into what we come to expect.

@kelpdiver - Price? I've been a long time DSLR user, and now I also shoot mirrorless. Yes, I change the battery a bit more with mirrorless, but that's such a small price to pay for the considerable advantages and benefits I now get. It takes me a couple seconds to swap batteries. No big deal. I have both DSLRs and mirrorless, so I can choose whatever camera I want to leave the house with. And for the last two years, my choice has been mirrorless about 95% of the time. Believe me, I've owned an extensive variety of cameras (both DSLR and mirrorless), so I'm not just blowing smoke.

@kelpdiver- As for the "resolution problem" (I assume you mean viewfinder resolution), OVFs are not nearly as high resolution as you seem to think. You're looking at a frosted piece of plastic focusing screen, after all! http://www.focusingscreen.com/work/picture/5d2/008.jpgAnd a lot of APS-C OVFs are not great. Plus, OVF size is tied to sensor format size. That's not the case with EVF. You can make an EVF as large as you want to. That's why an Fuji X-T1 APS-C camera or Olympus E-M1 m4/3 camera can have a viewfinder as large as a Canon 1DX FF camera!

Plus, EVF resolution is quite good now. Plenty sufficient, and it definitely won't keep you from capturing great images! Plus, if you need to see detail for fine focusing, I don't think anything beats focus magnification, which EVF can do but OVF can't do. Sony EVF focus magnification is 6X and 12X = better detail resolving power than an OVF!

That's a good thing :-). In 2015, there weren't a lot of Sony FF lenses out, unlike today. So i ended up buying the Canon EF 85 f1.8 and later the EF 100 f2, and both have performed excellently on my A7rII. There are now third party Sigma and Tamron lenses out with Sony native mounts. Competition is good for the consumer.

Canon desperately needs to bring out a FF mirrorless pronto. The reason is because Sony is dominating the marketing and needs competition. Sony lenses get bigger and more expensive, yet their quality control for their thousand dollar+ lenses have more variations than Fujifilms kit lenses, and are all made in Thailand. They are getting lazy and they can get away with it because no one is competing. Having Canon around will finally force Sony to step up their game and offer more value. It also means Sigma and Tamron releasing more native mirrorless lenses designs because they can easily adapt it to a bigger market with having 2 mount options. Fingers crossed this rumour is true.

I wouldn't say lazy on Sony's part. Their latest "basic" camera at $2k has more features than a $4000 Canon and is essentially a slightly slower version of their $4500 flagship with 10fps instead of 20fps. They are pulling out all the stops to turn the screws on Canikon for not having mirrorless FF models out. They are pumping out new models faster than any company in the history of photography, and each one is a large improvement on its successor by pulling in all the latest tech from other models, yet the previous model is continued to be sold new as well.

Sony desperately needs to bring out a FF DSLR. The reason is Canon and Nikon are dominating the market and they need competition. Ok let's not forget Canon and Nikon sent Panasonic and Fuji scampering with their tails between their legs because they couldn't compete at all in DSLR's, they had to reinvent themselves to survive. Now I agree mirrorless' times has come, but until the Sony A7(R) mk III's, they weren't in anyway compelling at all. Canon and Nikon have hardly missed any boat as long as they hit the road running. They will look foolish if they offer deliberately crippled feature poor options and the Sony A7III's aggressive pricing is going to test Canon and Nikon's resolve. One should say the A7III has basically shot Sony in the foot as well as regards the A9, it looks extremely poor value now against the A7III and even A7RIII. They better cook up something special for the A9II that's for sure.

The A99ii is a FF DSLR and very well liked. Also, the A7r2 must have been compelling -- it had what was often described as the greatest sensor on the planet at the time. Maybe not sports-ready, and as good on AF as the A9, but certainly a very good camera with quite a lot of features.

Only a fool thinks Sony offers a great deal...Ok it looks to be a great deal for the A7III by only looking at the price of the camerabody only, but a camera without lens is nothing more then a box that can't take images.

But what Sony is doing here in not any different from what they do with their PS4. Bringing a game console cheap to the market to get the money tripple back when you buy games.

In case of the A7III the camera might look like a bargain, until you look at the price of the Sony glass. It is often much more expensive for the same lenses then the other brands offer.

The price of the A7III is nothing more then to lure customers into their ecosystem by looking cheap. The customer is being screwed over their lenses.

Spot on Fujica. Look at the overpriced made in Thailand Sony 35mm f/1.4 FE lens. So many decentering quality control issues and softness. Unnaceptable for a premium lens of that calibre. Canon cant come fast enough.

Yes, the Sony lenses are a bit more. But not a huge difference. Besides, you keep lenses a long, long time. People upgrade bodies more often. In the long run, Sony is hardly more expensive. But you get more features, such as IBIS, massive AF point coverage across the entire image from (693 AF points, 93% coverage on FF), face/eye AF, silent electronic shutter, etc. Plus, as Sony sales volume increases their lens prices will likely drop. Canon has the benefit of higher production volume with their DSR lenses. That's what allows the lower cost of products. But would Canon FF mirrorless lenses have the same production volumes as Canon's DSLR lenses? Most likely not. So I would expect Canon FF mirrorless lenses to be just as expensive as Sony's.

Ah, but the beauty of the Sony mirrorless system is that you can also opt for the Canon 35/1.4L or any Canon EF lens. That gives you a lot more options! People should not ignore or forget the adaptability of Sony bodies, and the fact that they gives Canon lenses things like IBIS and face AF that they don't get on Canon bodies. Plus, don't forget that Sigma will be introducing 9 full frame lenses for Sony E-mount:

I have to agree with many of the comments here that this, "rumor" released by Canon does remind me of vaporware.

The software industry has used the vaporware concept to prevent users of its products from jumping to other brands for many years. Whenever a competing software company would announce a new product, makers of similar but older products would announce that, "Greatly Improved Versions Are Just Around the Corner!"

I agree about the similarity to the vaporware concept to keep the party faithful. As far back as 2013, there were rumors of Nikon and Canon mirrorless. Eventually the Nikon 1 got built and then the Canon M. But from what i read, the Canon M still lacks specs compared to the Sony APS Alpha series. There were rumors of FF Mirrorless cameras from Nikon and Canon in 2015 when i bought my A7rII. According to Lens Rental report, somewhere on this site, the most frequent rentals now are for Canon equipment, followed by Sony equipment, from which Lens Rentals concludes that Sony is in second place for sales. :-)

I believe making a good mirror is more challenging then mirrorless. Higher accuracy and robust mechanism require to build. No more advantages to go further for mirror. When MP go higher, how to reduce mirror vibration is getting harder. I thing Canon know that is time to switch to MIRRORLESS. Just need to get powerful and lesser noice chip and processor to optimise the AF and IQ. If Canon hold on to their good built quality and reliability, they should be able to gain back the market share.

Of course they don’t have mirrorless market share. You can’t have market share with limited product. They have market share with DSLR’s because they have the product along with stellar lenses. They haven’t played the mirrorless game yet, just hang on! 😊

Is anyone surprised at something so obvious? Mirror and viewfinder assembly are inherited from the bygone era of analog and it was only a matter of time that they will become a burden. Electronics is much faster to develop and cheaper to manufacture than mechanics. It was only a matter of time before mirrorless technology catches up and overtakes the SLR way. The time is now. SLR no longer has a clear advantage. Canon or Nikon really have no technologies which could make Sony envious. Sure, there is the user interface to polish, the customer base, the lens portfolio. Sony goes all in with technology to stall opponents. They have the advantage today and are making use of it. They can do anything and everything (except OVF) that they competitors do, and do it cheaper. In only a couple of years, each and every mirrorless camera may be capable of insanely good AF with intelligent object recognition, 20fps+, blackout free viewfinder, silent shooting. Can SLRs possibly compete with that?

The Canon IDX Mark II is an extraordinary camera which I love using, and I don't like EVFs. They detach me from the world and interfere with my effort to make art, as pretentious as that sounds. So I'm happy with mirrors, not in a missionary zeal, accost people in the street sort of way, just contented.

@DarnGoodPhotos - I'm fine with people having a preference. It's just that his reason is a bit nutty. Detaches him from the world? Interferes with his efforts? Come on, seriously? I think some people are just grasping at straws, and I'm just pointing out that some of those straws are a bit psychosomatic. I really do think this is all in people's heads, and I mention the entire video-making and film-making industry to make this point; they don't complain that they have become "detached from the world" or that their efforts of art-making are being "interfered" with. Just an observation.

It reminds me of film photogs who complained, "I can't even look at digital photos because they're not real. They look fake and artificial to me!" Yes, I still remember some film photographers actually saying these things. Now, people are applying the same mentality to viewfinders.

OVF and EVF do look a bit different, much like film photos and digital photos do. But in time, the diffs will be nil.

It is only a question when, not if, will the EVF replace the OVF in majority of cameras. I can actually envision one of Canon/Nikon mirrorless efforts as one of the existing form factor SLRs with removed mirror-box and OVF replaced with EVF, while keeping the old lens mount. They probably cannot afford to turn the world upside down for their huge user base and at the same time compete with the likes of Sony A7 III which will probably cost ca. $1500 by the end of this year.

Nutty preferences? Have you actually asked filmmakers what they prefer?

OVF offers infinite resolution, optical corrections, and takes no battery power. I can take 1000 shots with a 7D and still have half the battery remaining. I can dive all day (5 dives, 60 mins each) and not think about it. With my GH4, I have to change the battery at lunch, and I'm almost certain to have a dive over a week's span where it gives out on me.

And for those using exterior strobes and manual mode, I don't want the LCD trying to compensate for exposure.

As for battery life, battery life certainly didn't prevent smartphones from taking over the world. In certain use cases, it definitely may be an issue. However, for most users it's far less of an issue than people seem to think. But in the end, I think the battery issue will eventually become a non-issue. The latest Sony mirrorless cameras (A9, A7RIII, A7III) with their new battery system already have excellent battery life:

It is no wonder that Sony will follow Samsung's decision on camera market, in consideration of shrinking in market share and sales volume after heavy investments since they acquired Minolta. Management decision always base on market environment, but not a specific competitor.

@Edmond Leung - Sounds like you are getting desperate. To date, Sony has released 9 FF MILCs. They have a rapidly maturing FF mirrorless lens collection. They have strong support from third-party lens manufacturers such as Sigma who have announced they'll be releasing 9 full frame E-mount lenses:

Sorry to burst your bubble but Sony isn't going away. They are going strong. As people continue to wait/wonder if Canon will introduce a FF MILC, Sony will not be standing still. So your comments are obviously just foolish non-sense.

Canon entering the FF MILC market will have to go through the same growing pains as Sony did when building out the system. That will be reality. And they are already far behind. Years behind. Same with Nikon.

Edmond - T3 gave you clear evidence, there is no way Sigma and many other lens manufacturers would pour so much into making lenses and adaptors for sony mount.

I work in documentary TV and the Sony A7s2 is now standard B camera, the old B camera was the 5Dmk2/3, but not anymore, the video is vastly superior to canon SLRs and the colours/codecs work much better with the C300 replacement the FS7. You call any rental house and they will tell you what is being used, people still like canon glass, but they aren't putting them on Canon cameras anymore.

I myself went to a Sony A7R2 because the stills are awesome, the video is awesome and I can adapt all my film lenses to it cheaply and easily! I have Contax G lenses, Mamiya 645 lenses and Canon FE lenses working beautifully on a smaller, lighter body with a better sensor than I can get with Canon.

There really is no need to be so annoyed at Sony doing well, it helps your beloved Canon innovate (you'd hope)

@Edmond Leung - I'm pretty sure that companies such as Sigma have a very good pulse on the industry. They know what's going on. They have access to numbers, statistics, and sales data that the general public don't have access to. Sigma certainly have a better and clearer picture of industry trends than you do! And they see where they should invest their precious money and resources. Therefore I think it's a very significant vote of confidence that they have chosen to bring 9 full frame E-mount lenses to the market! I can't say for sure, but that is probably the biggest commitment of lenses that they have ever announced at any one time. Sigma certainly would not have done that if they didn't have a lot of confidence in the success of E-mount. They are, after all, out to make money and get a big return on their investment!

@Edmond Leung - Sigma's intention to produce 9 full frame E-mount lenses is a signifiant bellwether and is a strong vote of confidence for the Sony FF mirrorless system. I may not have graduated from business school, but I'm quite sure Sigma's executives did. They have the business acumen, the business experience, and the business data to make much better judgments than you. Frankly, they would laugh at your idiotic prediction because they clearly know more than you do. And these Sigma executives are so confident in their judgment that they are putting their money where their mouth is by committing to 9 new full frame E-mount lenses. Now let's see you put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that Sigma would NOT be making such a commitment if they thought that the Sony system didn't have a strong future or wouldn't give them a significant return on their investment.

You are the one who is naive in business. Anyone with half a brain here can see that!

T3 - Sigma's decision may be a confirmation that Sony lenses are mediocre and that there's a lot of business to be had. They make their living looking for the gaps not served by Canon or Nikon. The ART series is a case in point. Canon has a gap between their standard lenses and the rather expensive professional ones.

Graham - where was the data in your 3 citations? The last one was about playstation and "smartphone parts." The prior was a press release from Sony itself. The first said Sony sold more than last year, again without any actual figures.

@kelpdiver - Nice try, but Sony's GM lenses are truly excellent. But, yes, Sigma would not be offering E-mount lenses if they didn't think there was plenty of money to be made there. In other words, they strongly feel that the Sony system will be very popular and help them sell a lot of lenses. They'll go where the business is, and they clearly feel that the business will be with Sony mirrorless. People really need to get their heads out of the sand. I remember Nikonians saying the same crap about Canon EOS in the early years of that system. It was denial, denial, denial. But Canon kept innovating and plowing ahead, until they caught (and surpassed) Nikon. Sony today reminds me very much of Canon EOS in the early days. Very innovative and fast-moving. But now the shoe is on the other foot. It's Canon that is now slow and sluggish like Nikon was back in the day, a little too comfortable in their position.

counter my argument with some evidence, you and Edmond have come up with no logical argument, nothing but your opinions, which honestly make no sense. I didn't say I had data, I said I had evidence, I have asked for some data that proves Sony are in trouble and about to leave the photography business.. I will wait, no doubt forever for this.

Also T3 is correct, the Sony GM lenses are AMAZING, the 24-70 2.8 is the best zoom I have ever used, it's like having a set of primes you can zoom through.

There was a time when Canon made me sell 2 x Nikon bodies and 8 x lenses, flashes etc....that camera was the 5D MkII, I loved it. Then along came the rather progressive Sony A7R, which made me offload all my Canon glass and my beloved 5D MkII. It hjas now been so long that I have moved onto other Sony cameras (A6300 and A7R MkII) and have not felt the need to rethink offloading Canon. I wonder if anyone in the same boat as me, will ever consider going back, or is it simply too little too late?

well... actually they kind of already have... the M5 is a really good camera, resonsive, good menu&touch screen, etc. It is just not a "pro" model... make a more solid body, add weather stabilization, some other pro features from the 5D IV ... and a solid AF, and they have it. Also release 3-4 lenses at start while maintaining "native" speed for the entire EF range, and it's almost instant win for canon.

The money is with the consumer market and just from a glance on the street in a tourist area of my city, i've yet to see anyone using a Fuji camera. I still see Nikon and more so Cannon DSLRs being used. Pro-wise, enthusiast & amateurs, if you haven't switched now, then what's going to really convince you to later? As the person said all Cannik has to is release a solid product&that alone will secure those who haven't switched, which despite what the internet paints, still not as many as one may believe. Switching from system to the next can be costly, its why prior to mirrorless few people did brand jumping. Again despite the great offerings from Fuji and Sony if you haven't switched now then you probably aren't going to once Nikon and Canon release their own iteration of a mirrorless camera. cameras released in the past several years till now are basically all good for what they do, there are very few differences that are going dramat improve your photography so again why switch?

People have a totally unrealistic perspective of time. The Sony FF system is still quite new. The A9 flagship was just released mid last year. Pro staples such as the 12-24/4, 16-35/2.8, 27-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 were all introduced in the last two years or so. And people don't just switch systems at the drop of a hat. These things take time. The idea that everyone is going to switch en masse within a very small window of time (ie, now! Right now!), and if it doesn't happen now, it won't ever happen is simply ridiculous. Plus, you also have to keep in mind that it isn't just about getting people to switch systems. It's also about getting future users who have no history with Canon or Nikon DSLRs. And that happens over time too. And the opportunity is ripe, especially as DSLR sales continue to drop, and mirrorless sales continue to climb.

@T3 I agree but my quoted point was directed more towards, and I'm sure you've seen them, various youtube and receive sites with such articles exulting as to why the switched. You even have the ones now as to why they switched back and that's definitely unrealistic, however again from these very same people the exclaimed very vehemently that this is happening in masses and personally, just as you have explained, takes time and nobody is doing it as it would or rather as they would have claim. Indeed anyone coming into photography now they sure have a lot to choose from and the options are full of great choices.

@speculatrix: I went to the Leica webpage, and it said "Less is More". So a 1/2.7" sensor it is! Good, because that costs way less, too! (Then again, who wouldn't want a 10-year-old camera for $18,950 body only?...)

I think in the end it comes down to what camera system works best for you. A camera system consists of more that just one part, be it sensor, body selection, ergonomics. Canon has worked well for me over the last 20 years or so. The ergonomics and colors are second to none. Not to mention the L series lens. I believe that these reasons are slso why most Canon pros, Explorers of Light snd others stay with Canon. There simply isn’t anything that will give markedly better images. This is also a reason why Canon is likley to overtake the mirrorless market in addition to the DSLR market they dominate. It does not make them better ir worse than others. Its personal choice. Again, it comes down to the complete system. Not any one part if it that alone that dominates a personal camera system in my view.

One day they thinking about it...Next day they ask costumers what they need...Next day pro's testing it...WoW If Canon is so fast, what happened in the last 6-8 years ?I think this is only propaganda to slow down competition crazy sales.Anyway if i'm wrong and Canon FF Milc coming in the next day, bould be lenses to for it? And the most important Canon lagging far behind in IQ

@Vignes I switched from Canon to Sony. And i can tell you Canon is years behind from Sony in sensor and lens IQ, that is a welknown fact anyway. Canon users think dxo is lying but they ate quite accurate.

Interesting. Canon won't miss the opportunity to show at Photokina but unlike some others, when Canon announces, they usually deliver and without backorders. And since DPR does not publish rumors, we can assume Canon mirrorless FF is on the way.

Within 2 years Canin will have 30-60% of FF mirrorless market share. That means Sony will lose at least 30%.

Canon already is beating Sony is lens sales for pro sports use because Canon makes the best lenses. A good number of Sony us were will dump Sony because they already use Canon lenses instead of the Sonys.

Pro sports and action shooters do need IBIS because the lenses have IS.

And Canon clearly is smarter than Sony for involving the best pros from day one. Sony can't even make a weather resistant camera properly nor one with a decent grip and controls. Nor can Sony figure out color science. Their latest sample pics showed just how bad they make people's skin tones look.

His prediction is probably right, just not in the way most responses are thinking.

I do not know what the actual numbers are, but for simplification's sake let's say 6,000,000 is the total number of less than 5 year old Mirrorless DSLR's out there, and 30 million less than 5 year old mirrorslapper DSLR's, with about 60% of that being canon.

If Canon moves one of their main lines to Mirrorless and keeps the same lens mount for pro's and enthusiasts, I could easily see 20-25% of Canon owners buying a mirrorless over a 2 year period if it offers compelling reasons to upgrade. 20% of 18 million = 3.6 million. Canon can easily come to dominate the market based on momentum alone.

That being said, change is opportunity. Canon still has plenty of chances to screw this up. Any screw ups can be pounced upon by Sony or Nikon. I actually think this is the biggest reason why canon will keep the EF mount, to keep lock in with a sizable amount of customers.

To compete with Sony, Canon has to have IBIS, a good range of native lenses (Canon EF lenses work on Sonys) and all at the same prices. Seeing the featureas and the performance of the latest Canon FF, the 6d2 at 2000 usd (vs.A7 iii) I doubt Canon could adapt. Same about their EF-M system vs. Fujifilm APS-c, Sony APS-c and even m4/3.

if canon decides to usher in their high end mirror-less cameras, those little conditions and challenges you have noted, won't mean anything for canon to overcome ;-) in today's level of technology and capabilities, technological challenges can be overcome almost overnight! it is just a matter of who designs a better mousetrap ;-)

I doubt this. They missed the start. Canon is not Leica. What Canon makes other camera makers do too and some even better. Leica is targeting other market. No professional buys a camera because it says "Canon" on it. It is just a tool.

Canon does not need to compete with Sony. It needs to satisfy its shareholders in sales markets. It sees mirrorless as an expanding market.True, a camera is just a tool, but it just happens that Canon makes the best tools right now according to both amateur and pro sales.Many companies have tried to dethrone Toyota and Honda without success.

So all the long telephotos that need IS already have it so why does the camera need IBIS? They even have wide primes with IS. They already have lenses that can be made to work super well with it and only need to release a few wider primes that can benefit from the shorter flange distance. If Canon didn't have the lenses Metabones would not be able to make any money. As for this head start thing that didn't help Samsung and this isn't consols where an early start can build up a game library or following, they already have more than 60% of the existing DSLR market who can now buy a mirrorless.

Exactly, the companies are competing for customers in the marketplace, so if more people are buying product A than product B, it makes no sense to say that A is less competitive. But I think many gearheads are playing out some kind of imaginary battles between cameras in their heads, where spec sheets and sensor performance tests are the weapons, and it's based on this that they decide the competitiveness of cameras. That would explain the frequent talk of cameras "killing" each other.

There is no doubt that canon knows how to sell the cameras. They are selling lots of M in japan for example and doing better than sony on it. But to say that because it is selling more canon is somehow making better cameras is misleading. Sony etc shall learn from canon. How many people would want to buy 1500 dollar camera when they can get something for 700dollars, specially when these are not the people who hang around at DPR.

Sony recognizes that their mirrorless market is about to take a huge hit by Canon. That includes all thise Canon defectors who went to Sony will probably come back to Canon. It doesn’t look good for Sony’s FF market. This is obvious by Sony’s recent introduction of their newest, much cheaper FF mirrorless camera to try and attract new Sony owners. They know what’s coming. In my opinion, its their FF demise.

miric, those are two reasons that wouldn't make any sony user change. First, the sony colours are great. You can see some tests on youtube and you won't be able to tell the difference.

And canon lenses work better on sony mirrorless than on canon mirrorless... I don't see any sony user going back to canon just not to use a metabones or mc11 that work great. Specially if then they'll need to use an adaptor to have ef lenses on a mirrorless body with a new mount.

People forget that as Canon enters the FF MILC market well behind Sony's much deeper/more nature FF MILC system, it will be Canon's DSLR sales that will take the big hit. And Canon DSLR sales are already taking a hit! At this moment, the Sony A7III ($1998) is ranked #16 in ILC sales at Amazon while the comparably priced Canon 6D MKII ($1899) ranked #90! These two newly introduced cameras are basically direct competitors to one another, and the Sony is far outselling the Canon!

As for Canon entering the FF MILC market, Sony is way ahead in its selection of bodies and lenses. To date, Sony has released 9 FF MILCs and a huge range of lenses. And Sigma will be adding 9 more lenses:https://www.dpreview.com/news/0726091764/sigma-announces-nine-full-frame-e-mount-art-lensesDon't assume Sigma will immediately be making lenses for Canon FF MILC because Sigma don't do it Canon APS-C MILC (but they do make lenses for Sony APS-C MILC)!

@Thorgrem - The 6D II is a new camera. It was just introduced last year. People don't immediately just rush out and buy a camera the moment it is introduced, hahaha! The lifecycle of cameras is fairly long, especially Canon cameras. Besides, a #90 ranking is a very poor sales ranking for the *newest* and *latest* Canon FF DSLR introduction. And at this moment, the 6D MKII has even fallen off the Top 100 sales list! Meanwhile, the A7 III is at #17.

Canon already has lenses. All those Sony users buying Canon lenses show that there lenses are just great for mirrorless. They only need a few wider angle primes and if its one thing Canon can do well its make lenses, so expect to see what the market wants. Canon doesn't need the Sony defectors to come back as just turning their DSLR sales to mirrorless will ensure they survive (and probably dominate). Once Canon matures all those defectors will start going back. See its easy to make predictions. We don't really know what will happen but I suspect Canon does know their market a bit better than the average DPreview reader (we have selectivity bias). An nobody should be buying a 6DII that camera derserves to be buried but Canon does have other cameras.

Zdam"All those Sony users buying Canon lenses show that there lenses are just great for mirrorless."

Sony users don't buy Canon lenses. The Sony shooters that use Canon lenses have them from when they shot Canon and have kept them because they work well with adaptors.

Unless you're rich you have to replace your lenses gradually if you switch brands. Nevertheless it's not expensive for a Canon user to go to Sony - they only need to buy a body and an adaptor. Moving to Canon means selling all your lenses as well as the body.

You don't seem to understand what the poster has said. The comparison is ON youtube, you are not looking at representations of colour on youtube and comparing them to colour swatches in real life. So no Lol.

Sigma CEO: "The problem is that each lens has a specific curvature field. Thus, a curved sensor which might work on a given lens would not necessarily produce good results with another lens. Actually, it could be worse than with a regular flat sensor. Ideally, we would need a sensor with variable curvature, but we are very far from this."

If you "can’t simply ignore the [130 million EF lenses] in the market", could you please make at least a booster adapter with AF to support those lenses on EF-M first?Especially given the fact that such an adaptor (EF -> X) exists for any mount except for EF-M😱How come you are not ashamed of this, dear Yoshiyuki Mizoguchi, Go Tokura and Naoya Kaneda?

They already have the best SLR and will just concentrate on that. Sony have the best mirrorless and will continue to improve there.. oh Canon, looks like they will just have some nice affordable glass soon.

The only compromise I can imagine is that it would essentially have something the size of an ef to e mount adaptor built into the camera itself, and it would jut out like the Pentax K-01. Ie. The body would be thicker.

Contrary to what everybody and their dog are saying, the lens doesn’t care at all whether there is a mirror in the path or not. There are two things that matter, and one that doesn’t.

First is the flange distance - the distance between the rear of the lens and the sensor. For ML this can obviously be shorter. When it is shorter, lenses for a certain band of focal lengths, WA to UWA about, can be made using a different design that is somewhat more compact and optically better. For longer focal lengths it doesn’t matter at all.

Second is the electronic protocol between lens and camera. If that one is showing limits you can’t get around and you really want to do something new, then a new mount is the way to go. I am not aware of any limitations in the EF that would require such a change.

Third, a shorter flange distance allows the use of adaptors so that you can use - long flange only - lenses from other systems. This is of very little interest to Canon, as they already have the largest range of lenses, and thus very little interest in having people using other lenses on their bodies.

Much of this “we need new lenses” is coming from people that equate ML with “new” and think that that must carry over to the lenses.

MikeCH, I recall from rangefinder vs SLR days where people said the rangefinders lenses were sometimes better optically. Same thing yeah? Same still holds true? Is it the wide lenses where it's an issue?

I wonder how much of a big deal it is. My 16-35 f4 lens is very sharp lens. What exactly are the optical trade-offs when working around the mirror? Distortions? Sharpness?

I think that is the same thing, yes. The range finders have a shorter flange distance.

At a guess I’d say you can make the wider angles for short flange distances smaller nowadays, but not necessarily optically better. Computer designed or supported lenses can be made to work around the optical problems with the longer flange. Like the 16-35 f/4.

In my eyes it’s more a theoretical problem, resp. advantage, than a practical one when you look at a complete range of lenses.

Yes, in the long run it's better to start from scratch. Canon knows this as well as anyone. They could have adapted their FD system to autofocus, but instead they decided to start from scratch with EF/EOS back in the late 1980's. Starting from scratch is ultimately better. That's why Canon (and every other SLR manufacturer) have all decided to start from scratch with new short flange mirrorless mounts and new mirrorless lenses. The only company not to do that is oddball Sigma with their Quattro mirrorless bodies.

Are you aware of any significant advantages in the design of longer lenses?

If not, then, no, it isn’t better to start from scratch for the system ecology Canon has.

It is better if your aim is solely compact cameras with small short focal lengths. But let me whisper something in your ear - the Canon ecology is far larger than that special case. Which is anyway well served by other brands.

@Mike CH - You're thinking very short term. Thick, chunky DSLRs with cavernous mirror boxes are already falling out of favor with a new generation of users. Now think of how things are going to look 10 years from now, when short-flange mirrorless bodies are the norm, and it's only Canon that is still using thick, chunky bodies with huge (and now pointless) cavities in the middle of the body. These cameras will look very outdated, like CRT monitors compared to today's flatscreens. Plus, you have to consider that there is a whole new generation of users who will be mirrorless-native, meaning that they will never be a part of the EF "ecology", just like there were EF users who were never part of the FD ecology. Times change, new users enter the market. What the prior generation might have used doesn't necessarily mean that a future generation will use it too.

Canon is already starting from scratch. It's called EF-M. The cat's already out of the bag. The horse has already left the barn.

@Mike CH - There are various reasons. For one thing, putting the lens close to the sensor plane allows you to get away from retro-focus (reverse telephoto) lens designs that were required due to the deep back focus distance of SLRs. That allows new lens designs that can take advantage of the short flange distance. For example, Zeiss says that short flange allows them to design lenses that are either smaller, or sharper, or both!

If you look at Canon's EF-M APS-C lenses, they are not only smaller, but also sharper than their EF APS-C counterparts.

Plus, the fundamental thing is that if you don't need that cavernous space (because you no longer need to put a reflex mirror there), then moving forward it just makes sense to get rid of that unnecessary flange distance. Open the way for a new generation of lens and body designs! Inevitably, the only constant is change.

@Mike CH - Yes, obviously short flange is more important for shorter focal lengths. But guess where most lens sales reside? Shorter focal lengths. In other words, we need to look at what is going to have the biggest visible impact on the consumer market in the future. New, future buyers of ILC are NOT going to be concerned about being able to use their collection of EF DSLR lenses because they WON'T HAVE any existing collection of DSLR lenses. They'll be starting off new, starting from scratch. If you do have old EF lenses, use the Canon EF-M adapter. But in the future, those EF users will eventually be the minority. So it doesn't make sense for the minority to hold back the majority from getting new lens and body designs that would otherwise take advantage of short flange.

@Mike CH - That means nothing for new and future buyers who have no EF lenses. That's what you don't understand: most users building a camera system are starting from scratch. So it doesn't matter if there are a billion EF lenses out there. What matters is what that new user has! And chances are, that new user has nothing.

Besides, Canon has the EF-M adapter to accommodate those who still have EF lenses. Furthermore, Canon will still sell DSLRs. But to use the existence of EF lenses as justification for holding back the development of a new system is just shortsighted. You can definitely bet that Canon is thinking of what the ILC landscape is going to look like 10 years from now. And even they see the ILC landscape primarily being comprised of short-flange mirrorless. It's the future.

I know I am in the minority here when I admit I don't understand all the hype and hoopla over Canon and mirror-less. I was under the impression that Canon's current line up was sufficient for most peoples needs, albeit with some redundant camera models. It would behoove Canon to update a few lenses IMO, 50mm f/1.4 is in dire need of a refresh, the 20mm f/2.8 and some others. The 5D IV and 80D are workhorses that are proven to still get the job done with an unmatched ecosystem

Paul JM: The way I see it..1. Most people have spent a lot of money on gear and don't want to have buyers remorse. So they'll feed themselves with info that confirms they made the right choice, and ignore that there are really only minor differences in the capabilities of both types of cameras.

2. Many people forget they can just mount their EF lenses on most new EF cameras and go into live view to do the same thing as most mirrorless cameras.

Most of it is marketed to feed the individual consumer ego with a false sense of pride. Otherwise they won't buy the next generation of overhyped tech.

You're right Ernest to the average buyer this is not big news but to the enthusiast who visits this site it is. All the fighting on this site comes from these enthusiasts thinking they are the market and that the big corporates are being stupid by not listening to them. I suspect it’s the same as with TV shows and fan sites. What the rabid fan wants isn’t always what is best for the show.

Uh, actually, its really mostly Canon users who are "getting hectic" and disturbed. The reality is that whenever Canon finally introduces FF mirrorless, Sony will be that much further along in the maturation of their system. Sony certainly isn't standing still. And Canon FF mirrorless will have to go through the same growing pains as Sony did when they first rolled out FF mirrorless, not to mention that Canon FF mirrorless will have to go through the same growing pains as Canon's own APS-C mirrorless has-- and is still-- going through even 6 years after it was introduced (EOS M was introduced in 2012). The notion that Canon FF mirrorless will arrive fully developed, as a full system, and create a slam dunk for Canon need to be tempered with reality.

While they are at it, how about making it easier to take portrait shots, I don't know, rotate the sensor 90° perhaps. You may not have noticed it but the world is going vertical. According David Pogue's article "Video Disorientation" in the March issue of Scientific American, 72% of millennials take their smatphone pics and videos vertically. I do it and I'm sure you do it as well. Sure one can hold the phone horizontally but that takes two hands, few do it. The media industry has noticed.

That's because that's the natural way that people hold a smartphone-- vertically. But that doesn't apply to stand-alone cameras such as mirrorless cameras, point-n-shoots, or DSLRs because the natural way to hold a stand-alone camera is horizontally! So you are drawing the wrong conclusion! "72% of millennials take their smatphone pics and videos vertically" because that's the natural orientation of the smartphone-- vertical. So a better solution would be to rotated smartphone sensors 90 degrees! That would allow smartphone users to hold a smartphone how they most often hold a smartphone (vertically) but still shoot a horizontal photo or video. Vertical video is definitely NOT the preferred way to shoot video!

in the real wold, where most DPR readers refuse to live, things like Mall Signage has been vertical for years. If I owned a video production company that specialized in Mall point-of-purchase video and/or internet advertising, ALL my videos would be shot the wrong way ;-) Get used to it, dinosaurs do nor rule the earth anymore.

David Pogue is a dinosaur, what does he know about what young people think or do today? The singer John Mellencamp tells a story about getting in an argument with a middle-aged record company executive, about what sold to the 14-24 age group. Same thing applies here.

@T3, 99+% of millennials don't gave a ratz*zz about DSLRs or any other ILCamera. That's why camera sales are in the toilet. In my part of the world smart-phone switchers are a fantasy—therefor the proper way to hold a DSLR isn't important to anyone but a dinosaur.

Sorry to say, but almost 100% of millennials don't have any interest in what dinosaurs think. Many of the kids, GASP, watch Netflix on their smart phones.

@cdembrey - Don't speak for millennials. I know plenty of millennials. They are a diverse group. And a lot of them kick ass. To lump any group of people all together is simply ignorant and bigoted. Grow up. Every generation talks crap about the younger generation. And every younger generation goes on to do just fine. Saying what you said just makes you sound like an ignorant, crabby old person, haha.

One of the best ideas ever posted.. It would be great if there was an option on your camera that can give that vertical shift of the sensor when ever you wanted.. Truly a great ground breaking idea and option to have.. BRAVO.. idea of the year award to you...

@T# says "@cdembrey - Don't speak for millennials. I know plenty of millennials. They are a diverse group. And a lot of them kick ass."

T3 if you truly believe this, why do you keep dissing them? Why do you insist that they change to match your old-fashiones view of what's right and wrong? I was born before WW2, and like Vertical Video.

regarding "Sure one can hold the phone horizontally but that takes two hands, few do it."

I'm trying to wrap my mind around this..... Why does it take two hands to hold a phone horizontally? I always use one hand when shooting in landscape/horizontally (including selfies), doesn't everyone?

The only time I hold my phone vertically is when doing a panorama, as that maxes out the resolution.

Well, gee, a vertical camera. ...isn't that why there are vertical grips? With the high MP of today's cameras, if you're too lazy to turn your camera vertical, just crop the image in post. What WOULD be nice is square format, ala film Hasselblad, Rollei, Mamiya TLRs, etc., in medium format. Then, you'd never have to do a 90° shift.

There are modern, youthful ways of thinking and then there is just dumb. Vertical video is one of my pet peeves. The reason video is horizontal is because that's how we see the world. Our peripheral vision extends out farther horizontally than vertically. Watching vertical video is like walking around with horse blinders on (no I have not actually tried that). The day movie theatres make a vertical screen is the day I give up the fight. Ever notice that vertical video needs L&R filled in on a horizontal display? You think people would get the hint.....

I cannot understand Canon's marketing strategy? Why mirrorless full-frame, obviously just for professionals, when Canon appears to be testing and not yet perfected aps-c mirrorless, the mass market, with the M50. I believe the better move is to improve M50's 4K video and make Canon Ef lenses available to M50 with adapter similar to Sigma Mc11

APS-C is for mainstream consumers. While FF mirrorless is for enthusiasts (which of course in Canon's world view do not exist) and semi-pro, or at least it should be. There's nothing to perfect in APS-C. It's an inferior format. You want some ridiculously overpriced crop lenses? Get a Fuji or MFT. They specialize in this kind of "snake oil".

@ecka84 - There are pro photographers working and making a living using all kinds of formats. Real photographers take real photos. They know that it's the content of the photos that really matters, not how an image looks at 100% magnification so that you can anally scrutinize every pixel. They don't spend all their time pixel peeping and measurebating.

Frankly, I find it a bit astounding that there are people who are still so obsessed with pixel peeping in this day and age. I just don't consider it to be nearly as significant as it used to be back in the day. Just use what you like, for crying out loud. You can produce excellent, sellable, publishable images with practically any digital format these days.

Sorry @T3, but as a professional photographer I know that's not true. I can't shoot an image with a MFT in low light and expect do to a roll up banner after. Good photographers that get good clients don't shoot with bad equipment.

@T3That's the thing. I'm not a pro and I don't need a different format camera for each and every occasion. Well, it's mostly because I don't want to waste money on multiple systems. I want one camera to do it all. You can be a professional photographer while still shoot snapshots for a living. Long story short, I don't care what pro's use these day, Probably anything that makes the client happy, which is basically everything that's better than a smartphone. I don't care about snapshots and I know what I want from my camera.Not sure what kind of display you are using, but on modern LCDs viewing an image full screen can makes it almost 100%. And there's nothing wrong with that. Some people have silly phobias, that's all."peeping and measurebating" - mhm ... sounds like something a 12 year old would say."still so obsessed with pixel peeping in this day and age" - In this day and age tiny little snapshots are boring and not worth my time and money.

>>Format is far less of an issue than it ever has been in the history of photography. m4/3, APS-C, FF all deliver great results these days.<<

That's exactly right. We use M4/3 for professional photography all the time. Large format banners, posters, all kinds of things. It works and we are not afraid to standout from the other photographers. It's the picture that matters to the client not the brand.

@PAntunes - 'I can't shoot an image with a MFT in low light and expect do to a roll up banner after.'

Sure you can. If you are a pro you would know that there are things called flashes and other lighting equipment. If it is a still object then you might not need tripod too anymore with Panasonic 6.5 stops of image stabilisation. If it is a object in a motion and you are not using any lights then ISO 6400 cleans up very nicely with DXO Prime noise reduction. I bet you would not think that the pictures in the link bellow were shot in low light at ISO 6400 with tiny MFT Panasonic GM1.

Of course that given the same sensor tech bigger sensor will always have advantage in low light, except the situations when you need greater depth of field i.e. to keep several faces, which are not in the same focus plane, in focus. Then you can shoot MFT at 1.7 and catch up with the FF which has to stop down.

Canon is going to have to do a lot of 'catch up' to the Sony line, if it wants to compete in the mirrorless format. Their current APS mirrorless line is nothing special, and is nowhere near the quality and versatility of the Fuji or the Sony APS cameras. Fix the issues that plague the M series cameras first...like the cropped 4K.

@Ming You are not a pro and you carried two full frame cameras into their show? Now I feel sorry for you, unless the cameras were two Sony RX1 lol. I had my GM1 in my pants pocket and the three lenses in the other one. Cost of the setup I used is around £560 bazar price and I genuinely think that some of those images look amazing, especially if you consider they are ISO 3200 and 6400 in low light from micro 4/3 sensor with bit of DXO Prime Noise reduction magic. Especially the ones with supersharp gems Sigma DN 60mm 2.8 and Panasonic 20mm 1.7. I would like to see the pictures of others from that show as they had only smartphones. I think you need to pay a visit to ophthalmologist or try different browser because you must be getting something wrong here. Or if comparing our sizes is what you are after, then don't even bother. Apologies if you are lady, it is not obvious from your profile picture or name. BTW I could have taken my A7 but why? Seriously? I wanted a stealth setup.

I find the snobbery about 35mm sensors amusing. It wasn't that long ago when medium format users looked down on you. And calling 35mm sensors "full frame" might be accepted practise but it's not historically/technically correct.

speculatrix, it's not snobbery. It's just facts. If medium format cameras were in a similar price range and technologically as advanced, they would be the go to cameras for many more professionals. The sensor simply gives you cleaner and more detailed files.

@aegarcia - "Sorry T3 but here is what DP review has to say about the Ef to M50 adapter you are talking about: 'The adapter's Af speeds are unlikely to be anything to write home about'"

Sorry aegarcia, but a permanently affixed/integrated EF mount on a Canon mirrorless body will perform no differently. The EF-M adapter is simply a spacer and a pass-through for the electronic signal-- and this spacer/pass-though happens to be removable. If Canon decided to introduce their next mirrorless camera with an EF mount, it would basically be a non-removable EF-M adapter that is molded/integrated into the body. The issue is not really the adapter but rather the effectiveness of making DSLR lenses work with on-sensor AF. That's why mirrorless systems prefer to make new lenses that are specifically designed for mirrorless AF systems.

speculatrix, obviously not. Phase one would be the go to camera for image quality. Not the leica...

Unfortunately medium format cameras are not as flexible as full frame cameras. The image quality can be amazing, but first you need to get the shot. Fuji has an interesting option that would be the answer to many photographers. But for people who do video or work in a fast paced environment, it just doesn't do it.

Right now, the most balanced option to get the best image and still have a versatile camera is FF.

I started with photography in 2010 with the E-PL1. Didn't even bother to have a dSLR. The new generation of photographers doesn't have (old) lenses so are free to start in whatever system they want. Canon and Nikon are missing the boat for the new generation. The new generation also doesn't bother with the 35mm film history and just take the package they like even if it has smaller sensor. It simply doesn't matter that much anymore.

@Thorgrem, you just summarized the problem most people see with the new generation... Impulse, ignorance and arrogance. "Why learn about what came before me when things are made for me now?" "Damn the best, I want easy".

See, again you show the new way of thinking without knowing your history. Olympus was dead. They hitched their cart on the 4/3 horse (4/3 preceded m4/3) and it was a dead end. A small 4/3 sensor in a DSLR body with lesser IQ vs Canon or Nikon and no where to grow. Olympus dug into their past (oh the irony) and brought back the PEN name that gave you your first camera the E-PL1. That is a direct descendant of a FILM camera. And what gave Olympus a stay of execution. So what you think was forward thinking was actually an act of desperation because they had nothing else. They appealed to emotions of technology past and brought back the PEN name. Listen, I'm happy you have what works for you. But you can't paint a "obsolete" brush on a company because it doesn't work for you. I like to think, or at least hope, that there are some critical thinkers in the new generation who realize there is more to photography than "taking the package they like."

Mmmm, I never said what you shouldn’t be using. I even said I was happy you’re using what works for you. You were speaking in 3rd person generalities which I was addressing. Why stop at m4/3 tho? Why not 1” or even smart phones. Each step down in sensor size is almost as good as the one above it. So then there shouldn’t be any difference between FF and an iPhone. Use what you like! Lol. I’m nit a sales person. Where you see a company or two stuck in the past I see a company or two making the most capable image takers on the market. But to each there own. Fun debating with you. :-). Have a great day!

Seriously? Kind of shows how downhill they've gone, where a "rumor" is touted as news. They are reporting on a rumor from a rumor site that is citing something that they heard from somewhere. Come on dpreview, is that really the kind of trash you want to be peddling? Rather than wasting your time writing this non-sense, why don't you guys spend some time writing reviews or delivering something more productive and useful.

@hetedik..... incorrect news reported as truth is fake news. Qualifying the story as a rumour is real news. They are truthfully reporting a rumour. There is a list of stories dpr has on their landing page.... It gives the reader choice to click on it or not. Personally I don't mind the rumour news. As much as I am a photographer, I'm also a fan of the industry and enjoy knowing who does what and what's coming out. All the great car magazines have spy shots of yet unannounced cars being track tested. I have no problem with a camera NEWS and review site sharing rumours. Besides, I'm usually visiting those review sites too and with DPR vetting the story, it adds weight to the rumour. Good times ahead.

Yes. That's how it works for other brands. But with Canon's recent reputation this news don't really have any influence anymore. We've been waiting for FF EOS since 2012 and there were rumors through all that time as well. So why wait this time? Because Canon rep said "maybe" instead of the usual "no comment"? :)

Latest in-depth reviews

No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.

The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.

Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.

The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.